People v. Tanner
496 Mich. 199
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Defendant George Tanner was arrested for murder, read Miranda rights, invoked right to counsel, and interrogation ceased; the next day he expressed a desire to “get something off his chest.”
- A jail psychologist and the jail administrator relayed Tanner’s wish to speak to police; Tanner asked the administrator to obtain an attorney, the administrator contacted police and the prosecutor, and counsel was sent to the jail.
- Police re-Mirandized Tanner, he waived rights and made incriminating statements without being told that counsel had been appointed and was present; the attorney was told he could leave and did not attend the interview.
- At the preliminary-exam suppression hearing the trial court suppressed Tanner’s statements under People v Bender, which bars admission of statements if police fail to promptly tell a suspect that an attorney has attempted to contact him.
- The prosecution appealed; the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to reconsider Bender’s rule and heard argument on whether state constitutional law requires the Bender rule or whether Moran v. Burbine controls.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan’s Constitution requires police to inform a suspect that an attorney has contacted police before a Miranda waiver can be "knowing and intelligent" | Prosecutor: Bender should be overruled; Michigan’s Art 1 §17 does not extend beyond federal standards; Moran controls | Tanner: Under Bender/Wright, failure to tell him an attorney was available invalidated his waiver | Court: Overruled Bender; Michigan’s Art 1 §17 does not support Bender’s additional requirement; Moran’s approach governs waiver validity |
| Whether an attorney’s efforts to contact a suspect (unknown to suspect) vitiate a Miranda waiver | Prosecutor: Events unknown to the suspect cannot affect his capacity to waive rights; warnings are sufficient | Tanner: Knowledge that counsel is available is material to a fully informed waiver | Held: Events outside the suspect’s knowledge cannot make an otherwise voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver invalid; warnings alone suffice |
| Whether Michigan precedent or constitutional text supports a state rule more protective than Moran | Prosecutor: Text, convention history, and precedents do not show a different meaning of “compel” that supports Bender | Tanner: Cavanaugh, Wright, and Bender reflect a broader state protection against incommunicado interrogation | Held: Court surveyed history and precedent and concluded those cases do not furnish adequate constitutional grounding for Bender |
| Whether stare decisis favors retaining Bender | Prosecutor: Bender was wrongly decided and overruling it causes less mischief than retaining it | Tanner: Bender is workable, longstanding, and rooted in state constitutional tradition; overruling harms reliance interests | Held: Stare decisis does not bar overruling here; Bender is overruled as wrongly decided and not indispensable to settled reliance interests |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bender, 452 Mich 594 (Mich. 1996) (Michigan decision establishing rule that police must inform suspect of attorney’s efforts to contact before waiver is valid)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (failure to inform suspect of attorney’s efforts unknown to suspect does not invalidate Miranda waiver)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required to protect Fifth Amendment privilege; waiver must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
- People v. Cavanaugh, 246 Mich 680 (1929) (early Michigan case condemning incommunicado detention and denying counsel access; discussed in relation to voluntariness)
- People v. Wright, 441 Mich 140 (1992) (fractured Michigan decision addressing counsel contact and voluntariness; no binding majority on extending protection)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (voluntariness requires coercive police activity; mental condition alone insufficient)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda is a constitutional rule that cannot be overridden by Congress)